[mythtv-users] How do I disable a tuner

f-myth-users at media.mit.edu f-myth-users at media.mit.edu
Sat Apr 30 06:35:35 UTC 2011

    > Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 01:14:11 -0400
    > From: "Michael T. Dean" <mtdean at thirdcontact.com>

    > On 04/29/2011 04:04 PM, f-myth-users at media.mit.edu wrote:
    > >      >  Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:42:27 -0400
    > >      >  From: "Michael T. Dean"<mtdean at thirdcontact.com>
    > >
    > >      >  >  I am going to go to Input Connections section and change the Video
    > >      >  >  Source for the bad Capture Device to NONE.  Am i correct in assuming
    > >      >  >  that the  scheduler will not use/consider this device now.  This should
    > >      >  >  buy me time to fix the bad cable.
    > >
    > >      >  If you do that, things may work fine, now, but at any point in the
    > >      >  future, all of your MythTV Capture Cards/Video Sources/Input Connections
    > >      >  configuration may be broken (with no further action on your
    > >      >  part
    > >
    > > ...once again, do we know what exactly breaks... ? :)

    > No idea.  And, really, no one runs with that configuration.  Until 

Eh?  I recall at least one person saying, some months ago, that he'd
been running with that configuration routinely, or for several months
at a stretch, or something like that.  (For all I know, we'd have more
people try it if you didn't keep saying "OMG don't do that." :)

    > someone who feels it's a good idea to configure MythTV to define things 
    > it can't use figures out what breaks, I will continue to say it's not a 
    > well-tested configuration.

So it's just -untested-?

And all this time, every time you issued one of those the-sky-is-falling
vague warnings about OMG-the-world-might-end, I thought it was because
someone had done that and had run into a problem because of it.  Simply
saying "that is an untested configuration" is much clearer.  It's certainly
clearer than hinting that something awful may have befallen similar misguided
individuals, but you're not going to actually tell us what happened to them.

I'm glad I asked; this response always puzzled me, since I hadn't
recalled anyone complaining that anything went wrong when they did that.
You know the archives well; maybe there are cases you're just not
mentioning, in which case a reminder could be useful.

    > Capture Card order has no relevance to recording input selection order.  
    > Capture Card order only affects Live TV input selection order and /only/ 
    > if you enable, "Avoid conflicts between Live TV and scheduled shows."


    > Input Connection order specifies recording input selection order.


    > And, whether you delete the Capture Card (which deletes the Input 
    > Connection) or you delete only the Input Connection, you lose that Input 
    > Connection order.


    > > [I still think it's a little weird that Myth uses the creation order,
    > > as opposed to something easier for a user to define and/or change, but
    > > that's a different topic.]

    > /me thinks what you're trying to say is, "I still think it's a little 
    > weird that no one (including me) has taken the time to sit down and 
    > write a UI to allow users to move cards and inputs up or down in the 
    > recording/Live TV input selection order."

    > While you can't do anything about the rest, you could do something about 
    > the "including me" part.

Do you understand why the comment above can be seen as insulting?

Let me try to explain.  I am -not- trying to be confrontational
myself; merely to give you some insight into a common pattern
that's been bothering me.

You sometimes alternate between saying that some proposed idea isn't
valid because there's some other way to achieve it, or saying that no
one should be allowed to have a voice unless they're also the one who
plans to implement the feature---in other words, that it's not valid
for person A to suggest an idea in the possibility that person B might
say, "Hey, yeah, that's worth implementing."  Note that I haven't
assigned any roles to A and B; neither one of them might be an
official developer.  Yet when you disagree with an idea, instead of
just disagreeing with it, you insinuate that someone who suggests it
is unworthy of attention because they haven't come up with a patch in
the same message.  [This is -especially- obnoxious in the current
context:  it's 100% clear that I didn't know what the problem -was-
that was leading to the convoluted UI.  And yet you're going to make
insulting comments about how I haven't submitted code to fix it yet?
Not a way to make me spend any time trying.]

That's a common attitude in many open-source projects.  It can really
piss people off.  It can make even people who might have contributed
just go away, because they don't want to deal with it.

It also denies the validity of a design process where someone suggests
a plan of action -before- actually writing the code---in other words,
one in which people actually -design- in collaboration with each other
before they spend the time to write a bunch of code that's misguided
from the start because they didn't do the design right.

All I was trying to figure out is whether we'd seen any actual cases
of unconnected inputs screwing people up.  I wasn't trying to provoke
an argument.  The issue of input ordering came up because that's
always the next thing on the agenda when people have to delete and
recreate cards, as you advised to avoid the unconnected-inputs stuff.

Turning that into an immediate "show me the code" makes non-coders
feel helpless and disenfranchised, and can make people who -can- code
feel that even getting simple questions answered is likely to lead to
confrontation instead of elucidation.  That wasn't my intent.

And I am -still- not trying to be confrontational.  Please don't take
it that way.  And at least now I (and others, I hope) understand more
about what's going on in the guts, and maybe someone -will- write that

Peace, and thanks.

More information about the mythtv-users mailing list